Rajasthan High Court

R S R T C And Ors vs Madan Lal Chordiya on 22 March, 2022

Bench: Sudesh Bansal

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

             S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 392/1998

1.     Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Through
       Managing Director, C-Scheme, Jaipur
2.     The Divisional Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport
       Corporation, Udaipur
                                                                  ----Appellants
                                   Versus
Madan Lal Chordiya S/o Shri Ghiyalal Chordiya, Conductor
RSRTC, Udaipur Depot, R/o Regran Mohalla, Chhotabas, Mewadi
Gate, Udaipur
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)         :     Mr. Deepak Goyal
For Respondent(s)        :     None



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

                                Judgment

JUDGMENT RESERVED ON                                     : 15/03/2022
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON                                   : March 22nd, 2022
BY THE COURT:

1. Appellant-defendant Rajasthan State Road Transport

Corporation (hereinafter referred as "RSRTC") has preferred this

second appeal under Section 100 CPC, assailing judgment and

decree dated 2.5.1990 passed by Additional Munsif Magistrate

No.2, Jaipur City, in Civil Suit No.833/1985 whereby termination

order dated 31-7-1984 was declared null and void and respondent

plaintiff (hereinafter "plaintiff") was declared entitle for back

wages and monetary benefits from date of termination i.e.

31.7.1984 and against the judgment and decree dated 14.5.1997

in Appeal No.270/1990 passed by Additional District Judge, No.5,

Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby appeal was partly allowed and while

the judgment of declaring termination order as null and void was

(2 of 5) [CSA-392/1998]

upheld the judgment of allowing back wages from the date of

termination as also the cost of litigation as Rs.1000/- was set

aside.

2. The facts of case are that plaintiff was appointed on the post

of Conductor on permanent basis in October, 1975. Charge sheet

was issued against him on 22-6-1983 for carrying passengers

without tickets and after departmental enquiry his services were

terminated on 31-7-1984. The plaintiff challenged the same by

filing civil suit alleging that departmental enquiry was not

conducted according to principles of natural justice and no

reasonable opportunity was provided to plaintiff. Plaintiff prayed

for declaring the termination order as illegal and void and claimed

for his reinstatement with all consequential benefits and monetary

benefits.

3. The defendant RSRTC failed to file written statement,

however opposed the suit of plaintiff. The trial Court recorded

evidence of both parties. Plaintiff examined himself as Pw.1.

Defendant examined a witness Roop Narayan Pareek as Dw.1 and

produced documents Exhibit-A-1 to A-12 to prove the

departmental enquiry.

4. The trial Court after appreciation of evidence on record

concluded that the departmental enquiry was not conducted in

accordance with law and proper opportunities were not provided

to plaintiff, thus, impugned termination order was illegal and void.

Accordingly, the trial Court allowed plaintiff's suit declaring the

termination order as illegal and void with all consequential

benefits, as also Rs.1000/- were awarded as litigation cost to

plaintiff.

(3 of 5) [CSA-392/1998]

5. Defendant RSRTC preferred first appeal against judgment

and decree of trial Court which was partly allowed by the first

Appellate Court and while upholding the order of termination as

null and void disallowed the plaintiff to get backwages and

monetary benefits and special cost. Hence, the RSRTC is in second

appeal.

6. Learned counsel for appellant-defendant has argued that the

suit has been wrongly entertained as the civil court was not

having jurisdiction to hear the suit and enquiry has wrongly been

held to be against principles of natural justice.

7. This court on 8-9-2006 framed the substantial question of

law "Whether, the suit is triable by the Civil Court?".

8. Heard learned counsel for defendant RSRTC and perused the

impugned judgment passed by the trial court as affirmed by the

first appellate court, as also record of the case.

9. The counsel for RSRTC has argued that principles of natural

justice was followed in conducting the enquiry. But the two courts

of fact findings have after appreciation of material placed on

record, concluded that copies of documents, copy of enquiry

report and opportunity of hearing before passing punishment

order were not given. Hence, there is clear non observance of

principles of natural justice, in passing termination order. The fact

findings need not to be disturbed and no re-appreciation of

evidence is required to reach on different fact findings at the stage

of second appeal.

10. As far as the question of law that civil court has jurisdiction

to entertain the suit is concerned, such issue has been considered

and decided by the Apex Court in Rajasthan State Road

(4 of 5) [CSA-392/1998]

Transport Corporation Vs. Bal Mukund Bairwa [(2009)4 SCC

299] and it has been held that where no enquiry has been

conducted, there would be violation of statutory Regulations as

also right of equality as contained in Article 14 of the Constitution

of India. In such a situation, in the instant case where

departmental enquiry conducted by RSRTC has been held against

the provisions of law, a civil suit will be maintainable for the

purpose of declaration that termination of service was illegal and

consequences flowing therefrom. Hon'ble Supreme Court in paras

47 and 48 held as under:-

"47. The purpose of the principles of natural justice is prevention of miscarriage of justice and hence the observance thereof is the pragmatic requirement of fair play in action. {Sawai Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan [(1986)3 SCC 454] and Narinder Mohan Arya Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.[(2006)4 SCC 713].

48. In a case where no enquiry has been conducted, there would be a violation of the statutory regulation as also the right of equality as contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In such a situation, a civil suit will be maintainable for the purpose of declaration that the termination of service was illegal and the consequences flowing therefrom. However, we may hasten to add that if a suit is filed alleging violation of a right by a workman and a corresponding obligation on the part of the employer under the Industrial Disputes Act or the Certified Standing Orders, a civil suit may not lie. However, if no procedure has been followed as laid down by the statutory regulation or is otherwise imperative even under the common law or the principles of natural justice, which right having arisen under the existing law, sub-para (2) of Para 23 of the law laid down in Premier Automobiles Ltd. Vs. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke of Bombay [(1976)1 SCC 496] shall prevail."

Therefore, the question of law relating to maintainability of

suit is answered in negative.

11. There is no substance in question of law as raised by

defendant. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held in case of Kondiba

Dagadun Kadam Vs. Savitribai Sopan Gujar [(1999)3 SCC

722] that question of law which has already been decided by a

(5 of 5) [CSA-392/1998]

larger Bench of the High Court concerned, or by the Privy Council,

or by the Federal Court or by the Supreme Court, mere wrong

application on facts of a particular case does not create another

substantial question of law. In such view of the matter there is no

substantial question of law in instant matter.